Judgment :- Order of the Court was made by B.RAJENDRAN, J. 1. These Contempt Petitions arise out of a direction of this Court by virtue of the judgment dated 16.7.2010 made in W.A.Nos.1022 and 1023 of 2010 to consider the petitioners applicant for the post of Noon Meal Organiser. 2. Earlier, when notice was issued, learned Government Pleader submitted that he will get necessary instructions in regard to whether any order has been passed. Today when the case is posted, the learned Government Pleader produced proceedings of the Collector of Tiruvallur District in Rc.No.19138/08/A8 dated 28.01.2011. According to the Government Pleader, the order of this Court dated 16.7.2010 has been duly complied with by the respondent by issuing the proceedings dated 28.01.2011. Hence he requested that the contempt petitions may be closed, as the orders of this Court have been duly complied with. A copy of the proceedings dated 28.01.2011 has also been furnished to the petitioners. 3. The learned counsel for petitioners would contend that though the order dated 28.01.2011, was passed by the respondent - authority belatedly, it does not follow the rules and it is not in conformity with the letter and spirit of the judgment dated 16.7.2010 passed by this Court. He would mainly contend that the rules and regulations at the relevant point of time have not been considered. He would even contend that the eligible appointee or the eligible person, who is to be appointed, has not been given chance and the rules have been flouted. 4. At this juncture, suffice for us to say that this Court in paragraph 20 of the judgment has issued a direction to the effect that the 2nd Respondent - District Collector, Tiruvallur shall afford reasonable opportunity to both the Appellants (petitioners herein) and 1st Respondent(s) to place all the relevant facts along with relevant documents for consideration of 2nd Respondent pertaining to selection at the relevant time." and that "2nd Respondent – District Collector, Tiruvallur shall pass final orders within a period of four weeks". From the order of the District Collector dated 28.1.2011 produced before this Court and as per the admission of the learned counsel for the petitioners, it is clear that opportunity is given to the petitioners, but he submits that the order of the District Collector is not in conformity with the direction issued by this Court. From the order of the District Collector dated 28.1.2011 produced before this Court and as per the admission of the learned counsel for the petitioners, it is clear that opportunity is given to the petitioners, but he submits that the order of the District Collector is not in conformity with the direction issued by this Court. Especially, his grievance is that the relevant point of time and the documents have not been specifically considered by the respondent - authority and therefore the order is erroneous. Unfortunately, in the contempt jurisdiction, this Court has to only look into the limited aspect as to whether the order of this Court has been duly complied with or not, but at the same time, the petitioners are always at liberty to challenge the order, if it is not in accordance with law or if it has not been properly considered and orders passed. Therefore, the right of the petitioners to challenge the final order is always open. Pursuant to the direction of this Court, in so far as contempt petition is concerned, we have to only say that though the Collector has passed the orders belatedly, he has only complied with the order and it is always open to the petitioners to challenge the order passed by the respondent in accordance with law in so far as its merits are concerned. 5. With this observation, the contempt petitions are closed.